Early Analysis: N8845Z - Cessna 172 Forced Landing on Bridge May 14, 2022 Miami, FL
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 27 сен 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.
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?
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
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
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.
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.
@@NicholasLittlejohn 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.
Thank you for the early assessment and breakdown of events.
Great job, I appreciate your videos… no nonsense, no drama or continuous personal backstories.!
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
Excellent analysis. Valuable insights to share with pilots who may one day face such a decision-making situation. Much appreciated.
I rarely get the chance to use the idiom 'Johnny on the Spot' but that firefighter definitely fits the description in this case.
Even the impossible turn got Richard. So sad.
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.
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
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
Nicely done, as complete as could be done at this point, and tactful.
Thank you for the interesting point of the "windmilling prop" an indicator that the engine has not seezed by damaged parts.
🌏🇦🇺
crazy that a drone was recording and caught a passanger jumping out of the burning wreck
Thank you! Please make more videos!!!
Thanks for a great 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.
There was a Golf Course close by which could have been option also. Terrible loss.
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..
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.
I am still wondering why the plane ended up on the approaching traffic side of the road.
It flipped over, as was reported.
Sounds like the pilot was a hero and everyone survived except him, just my humble opinion
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?
I can't help but notice that lovely sandbar in the bay to the left of the bridge.
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.
Wow so sad he died .. that last clip of him coming in looked like it could of ended with everyone safe . Unfortunate
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.
Sad news. Interesting analysis.
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 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.
Excellent assessment!
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 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.
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.
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
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.
I have to admit the lagoon-ish thing to the left is an attractive place.
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.
Why did you guys stop making the fascinating style of videos you used to make several years ago?
Golf course to the west?
A driver sees a plane in his rear view mirror will probably hit his brakes and ruin your final flair
Isn’t there a video of a 208 successfully ditching?
Su prótesis silba demasiado, por favor limpie el audio.
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.
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
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.
Very Good - thanks!
🙂😎👍
Do you know if the pilot was wearing a shoulder harness?
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?
Good job
Personally I would've aimed for the beach. More area to land, and less obstructions.
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.
He was at 1200 feet , none of those airports he could make it
Why not? Explain pls.
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.
R.I.P.
Should have ditched it in the water
If it hadn't been for that SUV this would be virtually a non-story.
All that beach…. And you pick a bridge….
Definitely Florida.....The shiny hairy back runners 5:38 are 1000% dedicated to their route. Nothing will stop them!
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.
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.
I would choose to land near the inlet where there's 2 dozen boats and jet skis.that would pick me up in seconds.im sure he didn't want to risk loosing the aircraft in the water.too bad that lady driver did not move over or saw him.RIP.
Update as NTSB investigates see ya in 2 years Maybe.
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?
I know now as close to the street im forcin it in and brakin
When he was clear of traffic he shoulda pushed it on and brakes not lookin for chevrons
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.
Yes, everyone says "put down in the water". But also, ideal glide is 65kt or 75 MPH, flaps full down and nearing stall is 45kt/50MPH, there is a hell of a lot to be said for speed reduction here, no matter how it turns out.
I would also have landed on the road, water ditching in fixed gear airplanes scare me. However i would not have landed into uncoming traffic
Would it help to shut off the fuel valve ?
Good question that shouldn’t go unanswered. Pilots are trained to shutoff the fuel valve, if possible, before a forced landing on or off an airport where no power is necessary or available for the best outcome. It is most important in the case of an engine fire during the emergency. If, as in this case, the aircraft was severely damaged on impact, it’s unlikely it would have made any difference. The fuel tanks in the wings appear to have suffered major destruction.
How would that have stopped a fire from fuel spilling out of a ruptured wing tank?
The plane landed fine. The SUV crashed into the plane causing it to flip and burst in flames
Amazing...driver of the SUV didn't SEE an airplane coming AT THEM? Drivers always distracted these days ..... they need to learn how to pay attention to their surroundings when driving....
No flaps= harder hit.
Full flaps would have negated F=MxA
Flying GA isn’t worth it
Personally, I don't think the pilot made any mistakes. Sat her down as pretty as ever. Unfortunately, the car that was struck either had nowhere to go to avoid it or didn't see the incoming plane altogether(highly unlikely)
@@a1c3c3u the car certainly looks like it was hit head on 🤷🏽♂️
Only person besides myself that believes, based on what we know now, he may have been attempting the best option IF the engine problem was gradual and he turned north to return with only an “issue” that got more serious. No flaps tells me he may not have lost all power until the last few seconds and was trying to extend his path beyond the bridge. We just don’t know.
The bridge has two lanes in each direction, the only options for that car was jumping the median or crashing into the wall.
Way to talk a lot without saying much.
Other ADM is still on the table at this point. Any condo cam footage of the other 2 options at the time? Tiny people happen at a good clip with his altitude. Traffic jam upwind? Crowded beach? He was hitting 80/85 as he should while options dwindled. Site picture may or may not have taken his life, so few more bits of info in an update would be awesome. Feel like there could be an area left unswept, may even vindicate our pilot/controller here. Commitment plays a huge roll, all the while windmilling. Hope we learn more here.
Either way we need to learn.
#232👍As a retired instructor we used to say the Private license was a license to kill. The reason is student pilots can't take passengers. A Private may; however, I would say with the # of family or friends that are killed, by a Private Pilot is greater than any other license. If you plan to ride with a Private Pilot you might want to wait to reconsider the risk.
ERAU 80 CFIA&I ret.
There are two errors in this analysis: 1) there are more private pilots than there are pilots who are "beyond" private, therefore they will account for more accidents even if the rate per pilot is the same; 2) people generally get private certificates to fly family and friends, whereas they get commercial and ATP certificates to fly strangers (paying passengers) so one would assume private pilots are more likely to kill family and friends, whereas commercials and ATPs would be more likely to kill strangers.
I get what you're saying, and if it were expressed in terms of hours rather than ratings, I expect there might be truth in it, but as stated it's not really useful and maybe gives people a more negative impression of private pilots than is warranted.
🤦
That beach would have been a better choice. Maybe he couldn't safely clear the buildings to get there. RIP
Maybe not. Fixed landing gear will tend to dig in to the sand and catapult the aircraft into the air (there's that inertia thing to contend with).
@@chuckschillingvideos I'd rather take the chance of a flip on the sand or water than to flip or crash into cars or buildings (there's that inertia thing to contend with).
@@SGTSnakeUSMC I respect that opinion. My point is that both options are risky in a fixed gear aircraft and either one can result in serious injuries and possibly fatalities. One thing to consider is there may have been a lot of boaters and swimmers making a ditching problematic.
@@chuckschillingvideos Agreed, all busy options in that area. I hear lots of talk about water landings too, but then again, get knocked out or hurt bad enough and drown in water or hit cars or power lines and burn on roads. I think its better to take the beach or water's edge. There is always a risk of hitting somebody regardless of landing area choice. The pilot's ultimate responsibility is to save his passengers. I'd go beach since bystanders have a better chance of running out of the way than cars on the road or swimmers/boaters in water. Unfortunately, not much water where I fly, so we plan on roads/fields or hope for the best on desert that is not as smooth as it looks from the air. Thanks for making me think deeper on this subject.
Hard to imagine forgetting flaps
Everyone would be fine if the woman driving the suv would’ve simply moved to the right lane, like all the other drivers were doing, instead of plowing into the plane head on
How on earth would she have known to do that? She was ahead of the aircraft, not behind it.
@@chuckschillingvideos the red SUV with the heavy front end damage in the post collision video had been traveling south on the bridge. The Cessna was landing northbound on the bridge. What you are saying makes absolutely no sense. In the dash cam video you can clearly see other vehicles in the southbound lane of the bridge moving to their right to avoid the Cessna.
Sad events. Unfortunately drivers are not paying attention to anything past the 3 screens in front of them.
Four screens in floriduhh
So now its the drivers fault?
There are no drivers(besides drunk or tired drivers) as clueless as "mother in SUV".
They are constantly doing dumb shit on the road in a pathetic attempt to be safe(which is always less safe). Around here they love to merge into 65-75 MPH traffic at 35 MPH. They think they are safer, but they are putting themselves and everyone else at much greater risk of injury/death. The best-case scenario is them creating tons of traffic due to forcing people to slam on their brakes in order to avoid smashing into them.
Zero respect for this former pilot.
Obviously placed the value of his life above that of the innocent public, who had no choice whether they were put in this situation like he did. Should have put it off the coast immediately when he knew he wasn't going to make it and had no options. Whether somebody in the plane can swim or not is something you should have sorted out before you chose the bright idea of flying to Key West don't you think? More likely tried to save the airframe. When my motor stops, AIG just bought themselves an airplane...
Unfair comment about the pilot. You chose to condemn him for being selfish and callous towards “innocent public” without knowing him or his skill level let-alone all the circumstances. Could be he just made a bad choice rather than some sinister selfish decision. Zero respect for you. Sounds like a low-time sanctimonious ego trying to impress others with what he did wrong and how you would have been much smarter and more skilled. I doubt you are even a pilot; pilots don’t call the engine a “motor”.
He should have ditched. If he did not want to take flotation he should have made sure all passengers could swim real good before taking off.
3:21 at 0.25 speed (less than 0.5 seconds later), the right tip of the wing looks like it already took damage from striking something. The tip is bent down like he tried to avoid it to the best he could. You look at the other wing tip, it's fine. With the amount of obstructions around, it does look like he hit something. If that helped contribute anything with relation to the accident... I have no idea, I'll leave that to the NTSB. Rest peacefully.
Actually, this Cessna had modified wing tips that help improve lift. Tough to see in the video, but both wing tips "droop" a little with the mod.
I believe you failed to address the number one question.... if he was landing with the traffic why did he hit the front of an SUV? It appears that he might have hit something before touching down which swerved him over into the oncoming traffic and with good piloting that should not have happened. See my video I follow roads with Dr Cyrus Thomas
The wings are 35 feet wide. There are lights on the side of the bridge. From the video it looks like he's landing close to the middle of the bridge (to avoid the lights) so his wing was in the oncoming lane.
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.
Here’s what a pilot needs to tell him/herself before they fly:
I and my passengers are taking a chance flying general aviation and the thing I’m NOT going to do is kill anyone on the ground.
Now ditch it in the water and see what happens.
You would probably never have a passenger with that generalization about GA and the lower concern you have for them as passengers.
@@bw162 Yes, and I also wouldn't try to land on a busy bridge and smash head on into a van with a woman and her two children in it! Who deserves to get home safely more? An innocent family on the ground, or a family that took the known risk in their small plane? You're all up in a plane, you have to take your chances without involving anyone else.
@@USmotto You are assuming a lot with knowing virtually nothing. Big talk from what I would guess is a low time pilot. Experienced professional pilots will evaluate accidents and learn from them. Blowhards broadcast what someone else did wrong and that they wouldn’t have ever done. There is a profound difference in those that evaluate what may have happened and those that proclaim what someone did wrong and how much wiser they are. Tells me everything about the person’s experience and maturity.
@@bw162 I’m not assuming anything.
@@bw162 BTW, this thread is full of comments by people stating what they would have done different.
(not a pilot) the only thing I could reason why he turned to the right was to intentionally ,,if he couldnt make it,, b/c of the highway to land there
god bless them all
thanks for the video(s)
I'm an IT guy with zero flying experience, but I've clocked more YT time with Paul than the yahoo piloting that airplane. I've known that water landings are survivable thanks to Paul. The fact that he chose to land on a bridge was a bad move for the drivers and selfish. Wind shearing off the condos as it came in from the Atlantic was something to factor. The intercoastal would have been the best option with watercraft ready to execute a rescue.
You don’t know that he initially chose to land on the bridge.
You might have experience watching videos about airplanes and know some stats, but you weren’t in the seat of that airplane- you and I simply do not know what happened, thats why there is an investigation underway.
Take the advice of the retired ATP pilot in this comment section. Too many factors we are unaware of to judge, you can have a read through them to put things into perspective.
@@yousephelmasry6933 I have a personal philosophy that calls for "practicing danger" - meaning that I puposely engage engage in stuff that would cost me life or limb. Radial arm saw with no guard? Check. Live outlet relocations? Check. Chainsaw with no chaps? Done. The minute that one gets complacent, is when one dies. He followed the road, then bridge for some distance. He had /plenty/ of time to get over the intercoastal. If you're a pilot, practice for danger, and learn from the pros and others' mistakes.
Private small aircraft should be banned. I'm sitting here in Fort Wayne delayed 3 hours thanks to a small aircraft crash in St Petersburg.