If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Stuff.co.nz)   Spiffy: Light aircraft makes a successful forced landing on a beach. Fail: The ensuing take-off puts the aircraft nose down in the water. The children "thoroughly enjoyed it" (w/ video of take-off)   (stuff.co.nz) divider line 66
    More: Silly, light aircraft, emergency landing, beaches, noses  
•       •       •

5764 clicks; posted to Main » on 11 Jan 2014 at 11:18 AM (31 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



66 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-01-11 10:39:14 AM
Hell of a job there Ace.
 
2014-01-11 11:22:04 AM
Note to the self of me: It is time for the playing of the GTA Theft of the Automobile V5 to do the cheating code for the airplane. LAUGHTER OL.
 
2014-01-11 11:22:07 AM
Oh yeah, you can totally see it coming too.
 
2014-01-11 11:25:29 AM
That guy clearly forgot to yaw right with the rudder on takeoff, and the left-bearing torque of the propeller dragged him into the water.

That's right folks, single engine aircraft, and multi-engine aircraft with all props spinning the same direction, do not fly straight.  They fly in the direction of the torque of the engines, usually to the left, and the pilot must compensate with rudder pedals on takeoff, and trim during flight.
 
2014-01-11 11:29:53 AM
He should have waited to be air born before opening his beer.
 
2014-01-11 11:31:44 AM
takeoff?  More like splashdown.

My guess is he was sticking too close to the water to avoid any danger to idiots on the beach wanting a front row view.
 
2014-01-11 11:34:57 AM
FAIL
 
2014-01-11 11:35:47 AM
what's his final destination?
 
2014-01-11 11:36:13 AM

moeburn: That guy clearly forgot to yaw right with the rudder on takeoff, and the left-bearing torque of the propeller dragged him into the water.

That's right folks, single engine aircraft, and multi-engine aircraft with all props spinning the same direction, do not fly straight.  They fly in the direction of the torque of the engines, usually to the left, and the pilot must compensate with rudder pedals on takeoff, and trim during flight.


I'll disagree. It's the slope of the beach that pulls him left, not engine torque. Watch again - he's always pointed the correct direction, but the plane crabs downhill. That's not what you'd see if the torque was a problem (not to mention it's a Jab 3300, one of the lower torque engines out there.)
 
2014-01-11 11:47:41 AM

fatbear: moeburn: That guy clearly forgot to yaw right with the rudder on takeoff, and the left-bearing torque of the propeller dragged him into the water.

That's right folks, single engine aircraft, and multi-engine aircraft with all props spinning the same direction, do not fly straight.  They fly in the direction of the torque of the engines, usually to the left, and the pilot must compensate with rudder pedals on takeoff, and trim during flight.

I'll disagree. It's the slope of the beach that pulls him left, not engine torque. Watch again - he's always pointed the correct direction, but the plane crabs downhill. That's not what you'd see if the torque was a problem (not to mention it's a Jab 3300, one of the lower torque engines out there.)


In any case he needed a metric assload of right rudder, which he didn't have on.  Probably not steerable nosegear.
 
2014-01-11 11:47:44 AM

moeburn: That guy clearly forgot to yaw right with the rudder on takeoff, and the left-bearing torque of the propeller dragged him into the water.

That's right folks, single engine aircraft, and multi-engine aircraft with all props spinning the same direction, do not fly straight.  They fly in the direction of the torque of the engines, usually to the left, and the pilot must compensate with rudder pedals on takeoff, and trim during flight.


I love the way he blames it on engine failure...  as in, the engine failed because he basically drove into the water and the plane nosed over and the prop dug into the sand, laff.

 I was taught to hold the stick/yoke all the way back for a soft field takeoff, they, um, didn't do that.  Pilot error on top of pilot error.
 
2014-01-11 11:49:45 AM
More Money than Brains.
 
2014-01-11 11:50:40 AM
fazookus:

I love the way he blames it on engine failure...  as in, the engine failed because he basically drove into the water and the plane nosed over and the prop dug into the sand, laff.

 I was taught to hold the stick/yoke all the way back for a soft field takeoff, they, um, didn't do that.  Pilot error on top of pilot error.


The engine failure was what caused him to arrive on the beach, not run into the water.

He does pull back - look closely, and you can see the nosewheel lift off just before the wheel hits the water.
 
2014-01-11 11:51:41 AM

fazookus: moeburn: That guy clearly forgot to yaw right with the rudder on takeoff, and the left-bearing torque of the propeller dragged him into the water.

That's right folks, single engine aircraft, and multi-engine aircraft with all props spinning the same direction, do not fly straight.  They fly in the direction of the torque of the engines, usually to the left, and the pilot must compensate with rudder pedals on takeoff, and trim during flight.

I love the way he blames it on engine failure...  as in, the engine failed because he basically drove into the water and the plane nosed over and the prop dug into the sand, laff.

 I was taught to hold the stick/yoke all the way back for a soft field takeoff, they, um, didn't do that.  Pilot error on top of pilot error.



No, the landing was due to "engine failure".  Engine failure that they corrected by transferring fuel from one wing to the other, apparently.  As in - he ran one tank dry because he forgot to switch.

The whole civil aviation scene is still so stupidly primitive and pilot workload intensive.  It's like a constant came of "Simon" where you crash when you make a mistake.

It doesn't have to be that way.
 
2014-01-11 11:52:37 AM

noitsnot: fatbear: moeburn: That guy clearly forgot to yaw right with the rudder on takeoff, and the left-bearing torque of the propeller dragged him into the water.

That's right folks, single engine aircraft, and multi-engine aircraft with all props spinning the same direction, do not fly straight.  They fly in the direction of the torque of the engines, usually to the left, and the pilot must compensate with rudder pedals on takeoff, and trim during flight.

I'll disagree. It's the slope of the beach that pulls him left, not engine torque. Watch again - he's always pointed the correct direction, but the plane crabs downhill. That's not what you'd see if the torque was a problem (not to mention it's a Jab 3300, one of the lower torque engines out there.)

In any case he needed a metric assload of right rudder, which he didn't have on.  Probably not steerable nosegear.


True & false. The Jabs do have steerable nosehweels; he just didn't steer where he wanted to go.
 
2014-01-11 11:54:56 AM
noitsnot:
No, the landing was due to "engine failure".  Engine failure that they corrected by transferring fuel from one wing to the other, apparently.  As in - he ran one tank dry because he forgot to switch.

The whole civil aviation scene is still so stupidly primitive and pilot workload intensive.  It's like a constant came of "Simon" where you crash when you make a mistake.

It doesn't have to be that way.


Is anyone actually watching the video? If he just forgot to switch, he wouldn't need to transfer from one tank to the other. He had a faulty fuel valve, and couldn't access the fuel in the full tank.

It's "stupidly primitive" because it's a homebuilt aircraft.
 
2014-01-11 11:57:56 AM
Strike 2 Mister Darwin.
 
2014-01-11 12:02:05 PM
It looked to me like he was trying to take off from the wet part of the sand which is the only good part for wheeled things. Then he miss-timed an incoming wave
 
2014-01-11 12:08:37 PM

fatbear: moeburn: That guy clearly forgot to yaw right with the rudder on takeoff, and the left-bearing torque of the propeller dragged him into the water.

That's right folks, single engine aircraft, and multi-engine aircraft with all props spinning the same direction, do not fly straight.  They fly in the direction of the torque of the engines, usually to the left, and the pilot must compensate with rudder pedals on takeoff, and trim during flight.

I'll disagree. It's the slope of the beach that pulls him left, not engine torque. Watch again - he's always pointed the correct direction, but the plane crabs downhill. That's not what you'd see if the torque was a problem (not to mention it's a Jab 3300, one of the lower torque engines out there.)


You're a bunch of cretins.

The motion of the ocean caused enough airflow to cause him to drift over.
 
2014-01-11 12:12:38 PM

Satanic_Hamster: fatbear: moeburn: That guy clearly forgot to yaw right with the rudder on takeoff, and the left-bearing torque of the propeller dragged him into the water.

That's right folks, single engine aircraft, and multi-engine aircraft with all props spinning the same direction, do not fly straight.  They fly in the direction of the torque of the engines, usually to the left, and the pilot must compensate with rudder pedals on takeoff, and trim during flight.

I'll disagree. It's the slope of the beach that pulls him left, not engine torque. Watch again - he's always pointed the correct direction, but the plane crabs downhill. That's not what you'd see if the torque was a problem (not to mention it's a Jab 3300, one of the lower torque engines out there.)

You're a bunch of cretins.

The motion of the ocean caused enough airflow to cause him to drift over.


You could make a poem out of your post if you tried.
 
2014-01-11 12:16:34 PM
Note to self: Do not ever fly with this guy.
 
2014-01-11 12:17:10 PM

fatbear: It's "stupidly primitive" because it's a homebuilt aircraft.


How do I know you don't no shiat about LSA or Experimental aircraft?
Not to mention the glass panel it has. Also, a Jabiru 3300 is beautiful engine, built on CNC equipment.
Pilot error caused that crash, period

 JABIRU J200 & J400 AIRCRAFT SPECS

 DOWNLOAD A J200 & J400 SPECIFICATION PDF
 

Engine Jabiru 3300cc (120hp)
Engine noise  62 db at 1,000' full power
Propeller 2 Bladed, fixed, wooden 60" dia. x 53" pitch
Height 2200mm 
Length 6550mm
Cabin Width  1120mm
Cabin Height  1090mm
Wing Span  8100mm
Wing Area  8.0 sq.m
Wing Loading Gross 17.9 ibs/sq.ft
Aspect Ratio  8.20
 
Speed KIAS 
Vne (never exceed) 138 KIAS
Va (max. manoeuver) 115 KIAS
Cruise 120 KIAS*
Max. Straight & Level 138 KIAS*
 
Stall Speeds At Gross Weight
Vs (full flap)
 48 KIAS
Vso (clean)
 60 KIAS
 
Climb Rate (at sea level) 1000 ft/min 
Service Ceiling  15,000 ft
Empty Weight  330 kg 
Gross Weight  700 kg
Unseable Load  370 kg 
 
Structural Loading 
Flight Load Factor +3.8 -1.9G
Structural Tested +6.8 -3.4G

 FUEL

Fuel Capacity  135L - (35.6 US GAL)
Range 700 n.miles
Endurance 6 hours
Fuel Consumption at cruise 23 litres per hour
Takeoff distance-groundroll 300 metres
Landing distance-groundroll 200 metres
Glide Ratio 10:1
Cross wind component 14 knots

 
2014-01-11 12:19:40 PM

noitsnot: fazookus: moeburn: That guy clearly forgot to yaw right with the rudder on takeoff, and the left-bearing torque of the propeller dragged him into the water.

That's right folks, single engine aircraft, and multi-engine aircraft with all props spinning the same direction, do not fly straight.  They fly in the direction of the torque of the engines, usually to the left, and the pilot must compensate with rudder pedals on takeoff, and trim during flight.

I love the way he blames it on engine failure...  as in, the engine failed because he basically drove into the water and the plane nosed over and the prop dug into the sand, laff.

 I was taught to hold the stick/yoke all the way back for a soft field takeoff, they, um, didn't do that.  Pilot error on top of pilot error.


No, the landing was due to "engine failure".  Engine failure that they corrected by transferring fuel from one wing to the other, apparently.  As in - he ran one tank dry because he forgot to switch.

The whole civil aviation scene is still so stupidly primitive and pilot workload intensive.  It's like a constant came of "Simon" where you crash when you make a mistake.

It doesn't have to be that way.


Hey, cheap plane manufacturer is cheap. High wing Cessna's have 'Left, Right, and Both' as an option. Older Cessna's also have 'Off' on the selector. Low wing planes cannot have a 'both' option because they aren't gravity fed.

The cost of upgrading keeps many people stuck in an analog world. Don't get me wrong, I like having my steam gauges in case the panel otherwise fails, but a G1000 and GTN750/650 combo makes flying approaches in IFR a dream, SafeTaxi (Garmin) also helps at mid-sized airports because you can 'see' where the taxiways are in lower visibility situations.

A G1000 costs better than $50k plus install. Many general aviation planes are worth far less than that. The problem is that a brand new plane costs more than $300k for a nice one. Kit planes are sometimes cheaper (like the one this guy has) but some can hit nearly $2 million like the Eclipse LT. Most kit planes will still be about $150k or more finished.
 
2014-01-11 12:20:25 PM
On a hunch, I looked at the bay on Google maps.  If the guy had spent a little money to truck the plane up the beach, he'd have had a LOT longer straight run for a clean take-off. He could also have had the plane towed to an actual road up the beach, or a patch of pasture.

Reminds me of the two idiots from Georgia that ran out of gas and made a street landing like five miles from the airport. The news reports document them re-fueling the plane and trying to take off from the same street, hitting the treetops on take-off and crashing much worse. When they could have rolled the plane down the street and around the corner to a clean, mile-long stretch of road without any poles or powerlines on it.
 
2014-01-11 12:24:12 PM

noitsnot: fazookus: moeburn: That guy clearly forgot to yaw right with the rudder on takeoff, and the left-bearing torque of the propeller dragged him into the water.

That's right folks, single engine aircraft, and multi-engine aircraft with all props spinning the same direction, do not fly straight.  They fly in the direction of the torque of the engines, usually to the left, and the pilot must compensate with rudder pedals on takeoff, and trim during flight.

I love the way he blames it on engine failure...  as in, the engine failed because he basically drove into the water and the plane nosed over and the prop dug into the sand, laff.

 I was taught to hold the stick/yoke all the way back for a soft field takeoff, they, um, didn't do that.  Pilot error on top of pilot error.


No, the landing was due to "engine failure".  Engine failure that they corrected by transferring fuel from one wing to the other, apparently.  As in - he ran one tank dry because he forgot to switch.

The whole civil aviation scene is still so stupidly primitive and pilot workload intensive.  It's like a constant came of "Simon" where you crash when you make a mistake.

It doesn't have to be that way.


Switching tanks isn't workload intensive. Nor is anything else about flying that aircraft.
 
2014-01-11 12:25:55 PM

rhiannon: Note to self: Do not ever fly with this guy.


If he had a Glasair Sportsman, I would've told him to detach the wings and truck it home. I don't know how much a hassle this one would've been for wing removal. Having landed at one sand airstrip was more than enough for me to say 'fark this' and I never want to do it again. That was one stressful landing / takeoff.

Grass, dirt, gravel? No problem. Blacktop, concrete? Great. Sand? No thank you.
 
2014-01-11 12:26:53 PM
Different view of the same takeoff. He was steering leftish to try to avoid the cliffs once he took off and caught his left wheel in an incoming wave. This guy is a moron and probably shouldn't have a license to fly.
 
2014-01-11 12:29:10 PM

fatbear: noitsnot:
No, the landing was due to "engine failure".  Engine failure that they corrected by transferring fuel from one wing to the other, apparently.  As in - he ran one tank dry because he forgot to switch.

The whole civil aviation scene is still so stupidly primitive and pilot workload intensive.  It's like a constant came of "Simon" where you crash when you make a mistake.

It doesn't have to be that way.

Is anyone actually watching the video? If he just forgot to switch, he wouldn't need to transfer from one tank to the other. He had a faulty fuel valve, and couldn't access the fuel in the full tank.

It's "stupidly primitive" because it's a homebuilt aircraft.


Yep - didn't have the sound on :)

But that's not a homebuilt, is it?  In any case, homebuilts are usually MUCH more sophisticated than the standard POS 70's 172.
 
2014-01-11 12:32:29 PM

fatbear: fazookus:

I love the way he blames it on engine failure...  as in, the engine failed because he basically drove into the water and the plane nosed over and the prop dug into the sand, laff.

 I was taught to hold the stick/yoke all the way back for a soft field takeoff, they, um, didn't do that.  Pilot error on top of pilot error.

The engine failure was what caused him to arrive on the beach, not run into the water.

He does pull back - look closely, and you can see the nosewheel lift off just before the wheel hits the water.


fatbear: fazookus:

I love the way he blames it on engine failure...  as in, the engine failed because he basically drove into the water and the plane nosed over and the prop dug into the sand, laff.

 I was taught to hold the stick/yoke all the way back for a soft field takeoff, they, um, didn't do that.  Pilot error on top of pilot error.

The engine failure was what caused him to arrive on the beach, not run into the water.

He does pull back - look closely, and you can see the nosewheel lift off just before the wheel hits the water.


Oh, you're right, I sped-heard that, I'm obviously wrong (I am an idiot, though my interpretation is funnier).

In a normal takeoff you rotate when you hit X airspeed, a soft field takeoff is where you have the stick all way back from the get go, the idea is to keep as much weight off the wheels as possible, as long as possible.  Once the plane lifts off on its own the nose comes up and it's perfectly natural to let off some pressure off and fly away as usual (unless you're making a soft/short field takeoff).  Or so I believe, this coming from a few hours on a J3 Cub (greatest airplane of all time) and the rest on Cherokee flying appliances, not nearly as fun but the Cub basically fell apart so I had no choice.

If he had had full up elevator all the time you could have easily seen it, and he didn't.  Basically he did (tried to do) a normal hard surface takeoff on a really soft surface.  My guess is that the left wheel dug in and dragged him into the water.

As for torque (I feel a disturbance in the force, as though millions of Fark readers were falling asleep) the need for right rudder on climb out is actually a slipstream effect  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slipstream#Spiral_slipstream and not torque.  I was told it was torque when I got my license but when you think about it torque would be a twisting moment about the axis of the propeller, something you'd counteract with the ailerons, not the rudder.
 
2014-01-11 12:33:02 PM

inglixthemad: A G1000 costs better than $50


I have a Piper 180 with a Garmin 696 mounted on the yoke, it was about 3 grand. Obviously not certified for IFR  but with its giant screen and XM weather it brought my "Historical aircraft" right in to the 21st. century. I fly for pleasure and to get out to the river house so VFR is just fine with me.
Not everyone needs that glass panel airplane.
Buddy has a Cirrus with steam gauges and a flat panel.
He also has a lot more money too.
 
2014-01-11 12:36:40 PM

costermonger: noitsnot: fazookus: moeburn: That guy clearly forgot to yaw right with the rudder on takeoff, and the left-bearing torque of the propeller dragged him into the water.

That's right folks, single engine aircraft, and multi-engine aircraft with all props spinning the same direction, do not fly straight.  They fly in the direction of the torque of the engines, usually to the left, and the pilot must compensate with rudder pedals on takeoff, and trim during flight.

I love the way he blames it on engine failure...  as in, the engine failed because he basically drove into the water and the plane nosed over and the prop dug into the sand, laff.

 I was taught to hold the stick/yoke all the way back for a soft field takeoff, they, um, didn't do that.  Pilot error on top of pilot error.


No, the landing was due to "engine failure".  Engine failure that they corrected by transferring fuel from one wing to the other, apparently.  As in - he ran one tank dry because he forgot to switch.

The whole civil aviation scene is still so stupidly primitive and pilot workload intensive.  It's like a constant came of "Simon" where you crash when you make a mistake.

It doesn't have to be that way.

Switching tanks isn't workload intensive. Nor is anything else about flying that aircraft.


I helped the doc fly the approach in the Meridian. I come in faster than most prop planes in my our Acclaim, Mooney's are sleek, but a Turboprop is something else. I like to compare it to flying a Cessna thusly: a Cessna 172 is like driving a Geo Metro. It's not fancy, but it's workable, and it's easy to learn to drive. A Mooney is like having a BMW M series at the track, flying it well takes a good bit more practice to stay ahead. A turboprop like a Meridian is like driving a trophy truck at baja: you're looking off in the distance because that's coming up faster than you think.
 
2014-01-11 12:41:56 PM
Another stupid thing the guy did was not waiting a few hours for the tide to go out and give him more take-off room. Deahfrogg's link shows the shortness of the beach at high tide.
 
2014-01-11 01:19:00 PM
Rivetman1.0:

How do I know you don't no shiat about LSA or Experimental aircraft?

LOL - ok, mister know it all. It's NZ, so it's not an LSA.

And I didn't say the experimental part caused the crash, I was referring to the previous post that suggested GA was primitive because we still allow pilot error to be a factor in the crashes (as opposed to fully automated.)

/EAA lifetime, built two, restoring third.
 
2014-01-11 01:22:54 PM
noitsnot:

But that's not a homebuilt, is it?

Yes, it is.
 
2014-01-11 01:23:45 PM

Any Pie Left: Another stupid thing the guy did was not waiting a few hours for the tide to go out and give him more take-off room. Deahfrogg's link shows the shortness of the beach at high tide.


The copilot was quoted (in a different article) as saying they were hurrying to take off before high tide.
 
2014-01-11 01:25:22 PM
fazookus:
If he had had full up elevator all the time you could have easily seen it, and he didn't.  Basically he did (tried to do) a normal hard surface takeoff on a really soft surface.

True. I was looking at the nosewheel, but that elevator doesn't look displaced at all. Of course, that wouldn't have changed the fact that the left wheel hit the water.
 
2014-01-11 01:28:17 PM

Rivetman1.0: inglixthemad: A G1000 costs better than $50

I have a Piper 180 with a Garmin 696 mounted on the yoke, it was about 3 grand. Obviously not certified for IFR  but with its giant screen and XM weather it brought my "Historical aircraft" right in to the 21st. century. I fly for pleasure and to get out to the river house so VFR is just fine with me.
Not everyone needs that glass panel airplane.
Buddy has a Cirrus with steam gauges and a flat panel.
He also has a lot more money too.


You got an Archer for 3 grand??? I think I found a pic of your plane:

farm2.static.flickr.com
 
2014-01-11 01:28:48 PM
I really wish there were aviation experts on here who could tell me exactly what went wrong and the mistakes the pilot made.  Even better if they list their own expertise and flight hours so I realize they know what they're talking about.
 
2014-01-11 01:31:32 PM

fatbear: fazookus:
If he had had full up elevator all the time you could have easily seen it, and he didn't.  Basically he did (tried to do) a normal hard surface takeoff on a really soft surface.

True. I was looking at the nosewheel, but that elevator doesn't look displaced at all. Of course, that wouldn't have changed the fact that the left wheel hit the water.


Yeah, whatever the cause was the water did him in.  Major nucklehead.
 
2014-01-11 01:34:30 PM

fatbear: /EAA lifetime, built two, restoring third.


Past VP of EAA 96 building wings from prints CH 750 and PA 28 owner.

Pilot error will kill you and it does not matter what your flying.

My apology
 
2014-01-11 01:39:27 PM

Watubi: I really wish there were aviation experts on here who could tell me exactly what went wrong and the mistakes the pilot made.  Even better if they list their own expertise and flight hours so I realize they know what they're talking about.


If you don't want to read it, piss off and go read a cat thread. I don't have enough time to make all the aviation mistakes myself, so I try to learn from others.
 
2014-01-11 01:41:46 PM

Rivetman1.0: inglixthemad: A G1000 costs better than $50

I have a Piper 180 with a Garmin 696 mounted on the yoke



Wow, if I had one of those I definitely would have died looking at the display instead of looking out the window.
 
2014-01-11 01:51:49 PM

fatbear: You got an Archer for 3 grand??? I think I found a pic of your plane:


It is a Cherokee 180 and the Garmin 696 cost 3K, not the airplane.
 
2014-01-11 01:57:19 PM

costermonger: noitsnot: fazookus: moeburn: That guy clearly forgot to yaw right with the rudder on takeoff, and the left-bearing torque of the propeller dragged him into the water.

That's right folks, single engine aircraft, and multi-engine aircraft with all props spinning the same direction, do not fly straight.  They fly in the direction of the torque of the engines, usually to the left, and the pilot must compensate with rudder pedals on takeoff, and trim during flight.

I love the way he blames it on engine failure...  as in, the engine failed because he basically drove into the water and the plane nosed over and the prop dug into the sand, laff.

 I was taught to hold the stick/yoke all the way back for a soft field takeoff, they, um, didn't do that.  Pilot error on top of pilot error.


No, the landing was due to "engine failure".  Engine failure that they corrected by transferring fuel from one wing to the other, apparently.  As in - he ran one tank dry because he forgot to switch.

The whole civil aviation scene is still so stupidly primitive and pilot workload intensive.  It's like a constant came of "Simon" where you crash when you make a mistake.

It doesn't have to be that way.

Switching tanks isn't workload intensive. Nor is anything else about flying that aircraft.


You're just being difficult. It's a well known issue that pilot workload is a problem at all levels of flying.  And I believe that fuel starvation due to failure to switch tanks is a major accident cause - although I've been out of it for a long time, so maybe the world has changed.

Still seems to me that it's the same old 172s, Cherokees, Bonanzas and Mooneys that it always was.
 
2014-01-11 01:59:00 PM
How can you tell if someone is a pilot?

Don't worry, they'll tell you.

\this thread
 
2014-01-11 02:15:30 PM

noitsnot:

Switching tanks isn't workload intensive. Nor is anything else about flying that aircraft.

You're just being difficult. It's a well known issue that pilot workload is a problem at all levels of flying.  And I believe that fuel starvation due to failure to switch tanks is a major accident cause - although I've been out of it for a long time, so maybe the world has changed.

Still seems to me that it's the same old 172s, Cherokees, Bonanzas and Mooneys that it always was.


Thats what killed John Denver. The switch for the fuel tanks, as well as the fuel gauge were both located in a really odd spot over his left shoulder behind the seat instead of on the dash or someplace a little more convenient to the pilot. Whoever built that plane, a Rutan Long-EZ, somehow they missed the basic fact that people have to have more visual access to critical controls on an aircraft. In any case, the fact that he ran his tanks dry and didn't switch to the reserve was the most direct cause of that wreck.
 
2014-01-11 02:42:08 PM

Rivetman1.0: fatbear: You got an Archer for 3 grand??? I think I found a pic of your plane:

It is a Cherokee 180 and the Garmin 696 cost 3K, not the airplane.


Um...yeah.

i1.ytimg.com
 
2014-01-11 02:47:26 PM
Deathfrogg:

Thats what killed John Denver.


The Godwin of aviation threads.
 
2014-01-11 02:47:58 PM

fatbear: Um...yeah.


Affirmative geez I need more coffee
 
2014-01-11 03:09:01 PM
i1282.photobucket.com
No Joke and it really is a "Historical Aircraft" according to the Taxman and the total of 0 paid in property tax.
 
Displayed 50 of 66 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »





Report