Video of Piper Banner Tow Plane Crash Hollywood FL
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2021
Location: Florida
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Video of Piper Banner Tow Plane Crash Hollywood FL
A single-engine Piper PA-25-235 aircraft crashed on 17May2023 1236 hours in Hollywood FL, with death of solo pilot. No pax and no ground casualties.
That sucks so much.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Here, there, and everywhere
Posts: 1,122
Likes: 0
Received 12 Likes
on
7 Posts
As you can see, the aircraft is in a very nose-high attitude and it is obvious that he is in a high drag situation, most likely with full power. One might suggest that it should be obvious to the pilot that the speed is slow, and I'm sure it was obvious from an airspeed point of view but not necessarily from the view out the front window.
The view ahead on the Pawnee can be quite misleading. I have Pawnee experience towing gliders. If you take a look at a side view of this aircraft type, you will notice a significant slope downward for the top of the cowling.
https://www.google.ca/search?q=piper...&bih=929&dpr=1
The result is that level flight has a very nose-low appearance. I have flown a variety of tailwheel aircraft and most of them have a very nose high feel to them when doing a three-point landing(as much as completely blocking the forward view in some of them). The Pawnee is very different with a nose-low view when in the three point attitude. Therefore, it seems to me that it is more important in the Pawnee that in your typical GA aircraft to monitor your airspeed when in slower flight regimes, especially if you are not used to this aircraft as one can accidentally get slow when the view out the window does not make one feel that they are at a high angle of attack. If that had been a Cessna 182, I suspect his forward view would have been blocked while towing that banner the way he was.
The view ahead on the Pawnee can be quite misleading. I have Pawnee experience towing gliders. If you take a look at a side view of this aircraft type, you will notice a significant slope downward for the top of the cowling.
https://www.google.ca/search?q=piper...&bih=929&dpr=1
The result is that level flight has a very nose-low appearance. I have flown a variety of tailwheel aircraft and most of them have a very nose high feel to them when doing a three-point landing(as much as completely blocking the forward view in some of them). The Pawnee is very different with a nose-low view when in the three point attitude. Therefore, it seems to me that it is more important in the Pawnee that in your typical GA aircraft to monitor your airspeed when in slower flight regimes, especially if you are not used to this aircraft as one can accidentally get slow when the view out the window does not make one feel that they are at a high angle of attack. If that had been a Cessna 182, I suspect his forward view would have been blocked while towing that banner the way he was.
That company seems to have a grim record - using banners too big for the tug to pull safely perhaps? Even ATC were concerned enough about his RofC to ask if he was OK.
From moment one in that clip it was obvious what the nature of the upcoming accident would be, ridiculous angle of attack and the aircraft wallowing excessively. It may well have been turbulent, but that a-of-a was crazy. Poor guy.
Fully concur with Juan Browne's observations re inexperienced pilots hours building like that, and the wrongness of the 1500hr minimum.
edit. Fascinating link here discussing the technical aspects of banner towing - I had no idea it was so hazardous - or that this ridiculous permanently almost in the stall at full power activity was going on at ultra low level over a densley populated city! I'd naturally assumed this was just off the beach. What is the FAA doing, allowing single engined airrcraft to stooge around over cities at Vst+5 and a few hundred feet where it's unsafe to pickle the banner? It's utter madness!
Poor kid was only 15hrs on type too.
From moment one in that clip it was obvious what the nature of the upcoming accident would be, ridiculous angle of attack and the aircraft wallowing excessively. It may well have been turbulent, but that a-of-a was crazy. Poor guy.
Fully concur with Juan Browne's observations re inexperienced pilots hours building like that, and the wrongness of the 1500hr minimum.
edit. Fascinating link here discussing the technical aspects of banner towing - I had no idea it was so hazardous - or that this ridiculous permanently almost in the stall at full power activity was going on at ultra low level over a densley populated city! I'd naturally assumed this was just off the beach. What is the FAA doing, allowing single engined airrcraft to stooge around over cities at Vst+5 and a few hundred feet where it's unsafe to pickle the banner? It's utter madness!
Poor kid was only 15hrs on type too.
Last edited by meleagertoo; 20th May 2023 at 22:54.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Here, there, and everywhere
Posts: 1,122
Likes: 0
Received 12 Likes
on
7 Posts
That company seems to have a grim record - using banners too big for the tug to pull safely perhaps? Even ATC were concerned enough about his RofC to ask if he was OK.
From moment one in that clip it was obvious what the nature of the upcoming accident would be, ridiculous angle of attack and the aircraft wallowing excessively. It may well have been turbulent, but that a-of-a was crazy. Poor guy.
Fully concur with Juan Browne's observations re inexperienced pilots hours building like that, and the wrongness of the 1500hr minimum.
edit. Fascinating link here discussing the technical aspects of banner towing - I had no idea it was so hazardous - or that this ridiculous permanently almost in the stall at full power activity was going on at ultra low level over a densley populated city! I'd naturally assumed this was just off the beach. What is the FAA doing, allowing single engined airrcraft to stooge around over cities at Vst+5 and a few hundred feet where it's unsafe to pickle the banner? It's utter madness!
Poor kid was only 15hrs on type too.
https://youtu.be/d3Jkd3ce5lo
From moment one in that clip it was obvious what the nature of the upcoming accident would be, ridiculous angle of attack and the aircraft wallowing excessively. It may well have been turbulent, but that a-of-a was crazy. Poor guy.
Fully concur with Juan Browne's observations re inexperienced pilots hours building like that, and the wrongness of the 1500hr minimum.
edit. Fascinating link here discussing the technical aspects of banner towing - I had no idea it was so hazardous - or that this ridiculous permanently almost in the stall at full power activity was going on at ultra low level over a densley populated city! I'd naturally assumed this was just off the beach. What is the FAA doing, allowing single engined airrcraft to stooge around over cities at Vst+5 and a few hundred feet where it's unsafe to pickle the banner? It's utter madness!
Poor kid was only 15hrs on type too.
https://youtu.be/d3Jkd3ce5lo
One would think that the company would use the 260 hp Pawnee instead of 235hp.
Interesting that the pilot had just been checked out on the aircraft. That is exactly what I was wondering when it came to nose slope-down with a low time guy on an aircraft with an abnormal sight picture. I got in a heated discussion on a thread once about the importance of monitoring airspeed. Others insisted that pitch attitude was good enough. Well, different aircraft can have different sight pictures.
By the way, flap extension on the Pawnee will not help as they are strictly drag on this aircraft and not to be used for takeoff.
As for needing 1500 hours to pilot an airliner......I kind of like that idea from a pax point of view. This guy could have taken action long before but did not. No need for that to happen on an airliner. Let my airline pilots be 1500 hour guys that have had a few more scares and survived with lessons learned . Maybe the solution would be that one should have a minimum number of hours to do more risky flying rather than stuffing newbies in an airliner as the potential solution to this kind of accident.
Last edited by punkalouver; 21st May 2023 at 15:37.
Maybe the NTSB/FAA should require a minimum power/banner size combination,rate of climb performance,and better study of `banner aerodynamics`(area,size /drag/weight)...
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,573
Received 422 Likes
on
222 Posts
An aircraft that used to be kept locally to me and one that I had flown was destroyed during a badly flown banner tow pickup some time afterwards. That pilot survived.
Gnome de PPRuNe
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Too close to Croydon for comfort
Age: 60
Posts: 12,623
Received 294 Likes
on
162 Posts
I recall seeing Cubs doing banner towing along the beach at Miami/Fort Lauderdale, several seemed to be labouring along in a fairly nose high attitude.
Many years ago we were treated to the sight of a 172 hauling a large banner around Croydon town centre. From our office on the 18th or 19th floor, the aircraft appeared to be not much higher than we were - I'd say 500' was optimistic. Can't believe it was legal.
Many years ago we were treated to the sight of a 172 hauling a large banner around Croydon town centre. From our office on the 18th or 19th floor, the aircraft appeared to be not much higher than we were - I'd say 500' was optimistic. Can't believe it was legal.
Join Date: May 2023
Location: indiana
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In terms of the post that I am quoting for my reply, perhaps someone can comment if some of my impressions have any value:
1. The towline attach point appears to be below the center of mass of the aircraft.
2. The drag force is backwards.
3. The effect of 1 and 2 should cause a nose down pitch moment.
4. The elevators will be more in a nose up position than in normal (no banner) flight
5. The elevator being more nose up means that there is more of a down force on the aircraft requiring more lift from the wings.
6. It appears that the aircraft flight being discusses is probably on the back side of the power curve and close to the stall.
7. When the banner is released, the drag (backward pull) on the attach point will immediately disappear.
8. There will be (my expectation--is it correct?)that there will be a near instantaneous pitch up.
9. If the plane was already at the verge of a stall, it will most likely (my assumption -- is it plausible?) enter a stall.
10. Considering that (best assumption?) the plane was running with full power and the p-factor from the prop due to the high angle of attack, entry into a stall is highly likely.
11. Stability along the longtitudinal axis (roll) is doubtful.
12. Rapid rolloff to the right and quick reflex application of full left rudder seems to be consistent with what is visible in the videos
FWIW, depending on which video and how well the single stepping through the video, it appears (am I correct??)that there was a substantial bank angle to the right before the reversal to the left bank.
Just thoughts and not conclusions on my part.
thanks again for the videos that have been posted to make it possible to develop new insights
Very sad video, very benign airplane.
Lessee - if it was making 235HP and was flying at 55MPH - assuming a 90% efficiency on the prop -
[(550 ft-lbs/sec)/HP]*235 HP / [55 MPH*(5280 ft/mile)/(3600seconds/hour)] * .9 -> 1400 pounds of thrust.
If it had a full fuel load of 150 gallons and a 200 pound pilot that would put the plane at roughly 900 pounds of fuel, 200 pounds of pilot, 1500 pounds for plane -> 2600 pounds.
Not a clean plane, so if it had L/D at 10:1 then 260 pounds of thrust went into holding the plane up and nearly 1100 pounds went into pulling the banner, almost 4 times the normal drag.
Any better numbers and I'll run the above to compensate.
[(550 ft-lbs/sec)/HP]*235 HP / [55 MPH*(5280 ft/mile)/(3600seconds/hour)] * .9 -> 1400 pounds of thrust.
If it had a full fuel load of 150 gallons and a 200 pound pilot that would put the plane at roughly 900 pounds of fuel, 200 pounds of pilot, 1500 pounds for plane -> 2600 pounds.
Not a clean plane, so if it had L/D at 10:1 then 260 pounds of thrust went into holding the plane up and nearly 1100 pounds went into pulling the banner, almost 4 times the normal drag.
Any better numbers and I'll run the above to compensate.
If there are any current Pawnee pilots they will have a better fuel number.
Thirty six gallons usable. Twenty five was probably how much you added when you took a break. With the hopper removed the plane would have been well below the 2900 pound maximum but with several times the drag even with a spray bar attached.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Here, there, and everywhere
Posts: 1,122
Likes: 0
Received 12 Likes
on
7 Posts
According to the POH, there is a wide range for stall speeds. At 2900 lbs is 61mph while it is 46 mph at 1700 lbs(Piper calls this the As Usually Landed weight).
Ah - misread which tank capacity. Out of the total weight, not much of a change - that leaves the drag force available even higher.
Going with 30 gallons -> 180 pounds for fuel, ~1900 pounds total; 190 pounds of thrust to keep the plane in the air, leaving 1250 pounds or drag from the banner to absorb the output from the engine.
To get a similar pull from a 20:1 L/D glider tow, the glider could weigh around 25,000 pounds.
Going with 30 gallons -> 180 pounds for fuel, ~1900 pounds total; 190 pounds of thrust to keep the plane in the air, leaving 1250 pounds or drag from the banner to absorb the output from the engine.
To get a similar pull from a 20:1 L/D glider tow, the glider could weigh around 25,000 pounds.
What some people seem to be missing when commenting on this accident is the huge change in yaw stability when the banner was released. The tug went from being unspinnable to being very likely to spin as soon as the release was pulled. A contributing factor may be that some tow release handles are down on the floor and reaching for them may result in momentary loss of forward vision.
I've pulled lots of gliders but never a banner. Am I correct in thinking that a routine banner release is done well above stall speed and with far less than full power?
What is the speed you release the racing sailplanes at?
Also - do you roll the weight of the sailplane incrementally from the ground or is it as a single solid piece?
Also - do you roll the weight of the sailplane incrementally from the ground or is it as a single solid piece?
To get to the point of being able to tow a very heavy sailplane there has to be enough thrust/time to accelerate the sailplane and the tow plane in the field length allowed. If you need a 10,000 ft runway to take off with that combination and don't have that much runway or are operating off a high rolling resistance surface like grass, then that limits the weight that can be towed.
I see that a self-launching sailplane engine has roughly 60HP - so the excess horsepower from above would launch 4 or 5 of those. All up weight of a decent one is around 1800 pounds, so maybe between 7,200 and 9,000 pounds for the group. Not quite an order of magnitude.
I appreciate that having much more margin is better (and the sailplane pilot probably very much agrees) and that there aren't many 10 short-ton gliders, but it's still an interesting comparison to make.
This video for what looks like a smaller banner is interesting - it mentions a 750 pound "fuse" link, so that would limit the drag from the banner. I don't know if a plane with a higher tow capacity would have a higher set fuse. The guy in the video mentions his pick-up is at 150% of stall, but he mentions that most of the flight is as slow as possible to prevent damage to the banner and to give the audience sufficient time to read it.
I see that a self-launching sailplane engine has roughly 60HP - so the excess horsepower from above would launch 4 or 5 of those. All up weight of a decent one is around 1800 pounds, so maybe between 7,200 and 9,000 pounds for the group. Not quite an order of magnitude.
I appreciate that having much more margin is better (and the sailplane pilot probably very much agrees) and that there aren't many 10 short-ton gliders, but it's still an interesting comparison to make.
This video for what looks like a smaller banner is interesting - it mentions a 750 pound "fuse" link, so that would limit the drag from the banner. I don't know if a plane with a higher tow capacity would have a higher set fuse. The guy in the video mentions his pick-up is at 150% of stall, but he mentions that most of the flight is as slow as possible to prevent damage to the banner and to give the audience sufficient time to read it.